Where'S Your Proof?

[changed]

Any mathematicians out there?

I just want to make sure I'm getting this straight:

from - http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Axiom.html

nothing can be deduced if nothing is assumed… ~ Tautologies

Axioms and postulates are the basic assumptions underlying a given body of deductive knowledge. They are accepted without demonstration

“self-evident” assumptions are the basis of most branches of science

postulate = basic hypotheses that has to be accepted without proof

also, this guy - Kurt Gödel

am I getting this right to say that his incompleteness theorems basically prove that you cannot prove anything?

to make this religious (and thus qualify for this board)... when people want proof - proof of God, proof of the BoM, proof of anything... would it be sound to point them in the direction of Gödel's work?

[bookofmormontruth]

to make this religious (and thus qualify for this board)... when people want proof - proof of God, proof of the BoM, proof of anything... would it be sound to point them in the direction of Gödel's work?

No.

And the English / Science / Philosophy (etc) professors are going to be very offended for being left out in determining the "proof "of G-d.

[elguanteloko]

Any mathematicians out there?

I just want to make sure I'm getting this straight:

from - http://planetmath.or...edia/Axiom.html

nothing can be deduced if nothing is assumed… ~ Tautologies

Axioms and postulates are the basic assumptions underlying a given body of deductive knowledge. They are accepted without demonstration

“self-evident” assumptions are the basis of most branches of science

postulate = basic hypotheses that has to be accepted without proof

You have to stand on something to even speak. Each single thought you have and each question you make imply a world behind them and it doesn't matter what you do, you HAVE to stand on something (assume a world). That doesn't mean those 'axioms' aren't subject to discussion but that just that you have to accept them for their usefulness. Logic and mathematics are useful models, after all, not absolute truths (though "true" in the most serious way we can grasp).

also, this guy - Kurt Gödel

am I getting this right to say that his incompleteness theorems basically prove that you cannot prove anything?

I hope you noticed the contradiction inherent in that question ("prove that nothing can be proved"). You can prove a bunch of thing but you can't prove everything.

to make this religious (and thus qualify for this board)... when people want proof - proof of God, proof of the BoM, proof of anything... would it be sound to point them in the direction of Gödel's work?

It is CRUCIAL to distinguish the common use of "proof" and the formal use of "proof". Mathematicians and logicians use proofs (formal). Outside of that pretty much nothing else should be considered proof. "Evidence" is the word people should say when asking for "proof of God". "Evidence for God" is what can be asked for. Nothing in science "proofs" anything except that there's something somewhere that's wrong. Everything else is "evidence".

To answer this question, no, it would not be sound to send anyone to Godel's work when someone asks for "proof of God". You could, however, correct them on their use of the word and tell them that "evidence" is what they look for, not "proof".

[changed]

You have to stand on something to even speak. Each single thought you have and each question you make imply a world behind them and it doesn't matter what you do, you HAVE to stand on something (assume a world).

Yes, you have to start somewhere - and we all start in the dark not having a complete knowledge, and we build with this darkness as our foundation... how much can you build on a foundation of darkness? ...you start with the self-evident axiom that the world is flat, and support it with the evidences that your pencil doesn't roll across the floor when you carefully set it down, and look around, isn't it obvious the world is flat? and before long you have built so much on this foundation that everyone is scared to explore the ocean...

I hope you noticed the contradiction inherent in that question ("prove that nothing can be proved"). You can prove a bunch of thing but you can't prove everything.

yes, I was trying to be satirical ... you can prove a bunch of things?

1 + 1 = 2 ~this has been proven?

but then numbers themselves are just symbolic...

"Evidence" is the word people should say

faith is the evidence of things not seen. ~ Hebrews 11:1

there are those who don't like the idea of "faith" ... so how do you talk people into faith?

[elguanteloko]

Yes, you have to start somewhere - and we all start in the dark not having a complete knowledge, and we build with this darkness as our foundation...

I don't know what you mean by "darkness" here but it seems to mean just that you are unsure about your knowledge. am I right or wrong? if wrong, what do you mean by "darkness" then?

how much can you build on a foundation of darkness?

a lot, actually (whatever you mean by "darkness"). It's called "being wrong" and "not so wrong" or "I don't know that but I know this much".

...you start with the self-evident axiom that the world is flat, and support it with the evidences that your pencil doesn't roll across the floor when you carefully set it down, and look around, isn't it obvious the world is flat? and before long you have built so much on this foundation that everyone is scared to explore the ocean...

Sure but that is why science does NOT work through verification (except for pragmatic purposes) but through falsification. Science NEVER shows any theory to be "true" but only useful but it does prove other theories false.

yes, I was trying to be satirical ... you can prove a bunch of things?

of course you can. Godel's proofs are examples. The completeness of Modal logic is another example. That the square root of 2 is not rational. Etc. To even ask these question you need foundations or "rules of the game" if you want. Once those rules are accepted, THEN you can prove a lot of things to be the case.

1 + 1 = 2 ~this has been proven?

but then numbers themselves are just symbolic...

"Just symbolic" doesn't mean anything of importance. ALL words are symbolic... and?

faith is the evidence of things not seen. ~ Hebrews 11:1

there are those who don't like the idea of "faith" ... so how do you talk people into faith?

I talk them out of faith. Well, not really. I distinguish between "faith" and "going with the best option". Those two are very different. For me, you have to realize the option you accept is NOT the most likely to be the case but you still go for it to qualify as faith. Going with what you seriously think is the best option (though in reality it isn't but you just don't see this) is no more than reckless belief; that, for me, is not faith. Going to the doctor doesn't mean I think the doctor will, for sure, cure me but only that I recognize I have better changes of get my cancer (for example) cured if I receive treatment than if I don't. This isn't faith. If you go to a magician to cure you knowing you have far less changes of getting cured than if you go the doctor, then that is faith.

----

changed, proofs work once certain conditions are accepted. Godel's theorems show that you won't ever get a finite number of conditions to prove all. To accept this you have to accept certain conditions (or "axioms") about logic and inference. To deny it, also, you have to accept OTHER set of axioms. To say "I don't know" you have to accept another set of axioms. This reality about ourselves does NOT justify accepting any axiom you want as foundation when it clearly isn't good. The God axiom is NOT supported by the best evidence and as such is a bad axiom. You can accept it, that's on you to decide, but it isn't a correct belief by all best accounts.

[mfbukowski]

There exist consistencies within contexts which are useful for specific purposes about which we can have varying degrees of certainty- that is about as close to a "proof" of anything as anyone can get.

[changed]

I don't know what you mean by "darkness" here but it seems to mean just that you are unsure about your knowledge. am I right or wrong? if wrong, what do you mean by "darkness" then?

sorry - yes, darkness as in "incomplete knowledge"... you know what they say - "only hindsight is 20/20" , so with everything you have to start building on an incomplete foundation, and that is risky business...

Sure but that is why science does NOT work through verification (except for pragmatic purposes) but through falsification. Science NEVER shows any theory to be "true" but only useful but it does prove other theories false.

proving a fallacy? it seems you would run into the same problems - either trying to prove something is true, or false. Most things are relative/circumstantial so usually true/false does not really exist in any universal all-encompassing way...

of course you can. Godel's proofs are examples. The completeness of Modal logic is another example. That the square root of 2 is not rational. Etc. To even ask these question you need foundations or "rules of the game" if you want. Once those rules are accepted, THEN you can prove a lot of things to be the case.

trying to pry everyone away from the ivory tower - again, numbers are just symbolic, just approximations, so anything you prove/disprove with them is only applicable in the imaginary symbolic realm...

"Just symbolic" doesn't mean anything of importance. ALL words are symbolic... and?

yes, what is real cannot be precisely expressed in words/numbers

- what is real can only be experienced first hand...

people of faith say they have "experienced" something, but then symbolic words cannot convey the experience now can they? that's the problem... have to convince everyone to go out and have the experience for themselves - but there is so much work involved in obtaining the experience that most shy away from it...

I talk them out of faith. Well, not really. I distinguish between "faith" and "going with the best option". Those two are very different. For me, you have to realize the option you accept is NOT the most likely to be the case but you still go for it to qualify as faith. Going with what you seriously think is the best option (though in reality it isn't but you just don't see this) is no more than reckless belief; that, for me, is not faith. Going to the doctor doesn't mean I think the doctor will, for sure, cure me but only that I recognize I have better changes of get my cancer (for example) cured if I receive treatment than if I don't. This isn't faith. If you go to a magician to cure you knowing you have far less changes of getting cured than if you go the doctor, then that is faith.

well, in the US ...

http://blog.caringlawyers.com/2009/10/death-by-medical-error-pittsburgh.html

you might be better off going to the magician ... but yes, we look at what everyone else is doing, and how things turned out for them, and if we prefer placebos over medications with side effects who am I to judge?

----

changed, proofs work once certain conditions are accepted. Godel's theorems show that you won't ever get a finite number of conditions to prove all. To accept this you have to accept certain conditions (or "axioms") about logic and inference. To deny it, also, you have to accept OTHER set of axioms. To say "I don't know" you have to accept another set of axioms. This reality about ourselves does NOT justify accepting any axiom you want as foundation when it clearly isn't good. The God axiom is NOT supported by the best evidence and as such is a bad axiom. You can accept it, that's on you to decide, but it isn't a correct belief by all best accounts.

clearly isn't good? how so?

experiment - like follow the commandments - seems like you get pretty good results from that

[changed]

There exist consistencies within contexts which are useful for specific purposes about which we can have varying degrees of certainty- that is about as close to a "proof" of anything as anyone can get.

now, how do you convince anyone that is as close as you can get? ( so stop asking for proofs, and start doing what you need to do to experience it?)

[mfbukowski]

now, how do you convince anyone that is as close as you can get? ( so stop asking for proofs, and start doing what you need to do to experience it?)

Sounds good to me- the problem is that people confuse the scientific context with the religious one and say things like "magic can't cure you".

The problem becomes an epistemological one; no, "magic" cannot produce scientifically provable results because those are objective- but faith can cure- but we can only know that subjectively through feelings etc.

Because no one else can know what I know- except what we both (objectively) see together- no one can know what I know subjectively- it's the old "taste of salt" thing. The taste of salt is subjectively perceived and cannot be put into language- because language is by definition "objective"- there is no such thing as a "private language". Language only occurs between two or more people- subjective experiences occur only within my own mind.

The only way we can communicate anything subjective is because the other person has also had the same experience (we suppose- though of course it cannot be proven) of tasting "salt"- so we can talk about it.

So if someone has not had an experience- as has been said, like a blind man understanding color, they cannot possibly understand that experience in others.

That can also be true if they "misname" an experience; in cases like that, communication is impossible. An example of that would be someone feeling the spirit, and naming it something else- like a "fluttering of the heart" or some other feeling they do not identify as "the spirit".

Perhaps in such a case it would be proper to say that "that person cannot feel 'the spirit'" because they do not identify the feeling as "the spirit", and then it would be no more possible to tell them what the spirit feels like than it is to tell someone what salt tastes like.

[changed]

subjective experiences occur only within my own mind.

and subjective experiences are the only ones we can know for sure are true because we can only be certain of those things we have personally experienced...

Is this God's way of giving us agency?

subjectively perceived and cannot be put into language

no borrowed light...

[elguanteloko]

sorry - yes, darkness as in "incomplete knowledge"... you know what they say - "only hindsight is 20/20" , so with everything you have to start building on an incomplete foundation, and that is risky business...

Ok. Just to note, not only do we all start with incomplete knowledge but we also end with it (though with more).

proving a fallacy? it seems you would run into the same problems - either trying to prove something is true, or false. Most things are relative/circumstantial so usually true/false does not really exist in any universal all-encompassing way...

Not proving a fallacy but proving (and this you DO prove) that something about a theory is not correct with falsification. It's easier than you think (though the process may be hard). If a theory predicts "q" when you do "p", but you do "p" and NOT get a "q", then you know there's something wrong there. Logic points to what is wrong, too, changed.

trying to pry everyone away from the ivory tower - again, numbers are just symbolic, just approximations, so anything you prove/disprove with them is only applicable in the imaginary symbolic realm...

LOL. Logic isn't "imaginary" and neither is mathematics. Formulas in physics are models for phenomena. Is "God" just an approximation that doesn't point to anything except imaginary? That's what you're implying here. If concepts like numbers are "just symbolic, just approximations" that only apply to the "imaginary real" then the concept of "God" and "priesthood" do to. Concepts point to things, they are not imagination.

yes, what is real cannot be precisely expressed in words/numbers

- what is real can only be experienced first hand...

Dude, you are confusing two things here: a concept (words, numbers, symbols) and what the concept points to (an apple when speaking of "apple", etc). No one is saying "experiences" can be conveyed from person to person "first hand", that's just silly. The point is that words point to stuff. That "stuff" is what we are talking about. Sure, only YOU know what "tasting salt" is for you and no one is saying you can "tell" me what salt tastes like.

people of faith say they have "experienced" something, but then symbolic words cannot convey the experience now can they? that's the problem... have to convince everyone to go out and have the experience for themselves - but there is so much work involved in obtaining the experience that most shy away from it...

...not again. No one doubts you felt what you said you felt, that's NEVER the problem. The problem is when you start speculating on what caused the feeling. If I put salt in my tongue and I feel something, what if I said salt communicated me with Zeus and he sent an invisible, soundless thunder to my mouth that cased the feeling of "salty"? That sounds silly, doesn't it? Now, do we need to actually know what salt tastes like for that person to discover critically (or rule out options) about what actually caused the feeling of saltiness?

I think you get the point.

well, in the US ...

http://blog.caringla...pittsburgh.html

you might be better off going to the magician ... but yes, we look at what everyone else is doing, and how things turned out for them, and if we prefer placebos over medications with side effects who am I to judge?

This isn't an answer to what I said... not even a comment on what I said. I think I'm getting used to this type of answers around here. BTW, you quoted Hebrews 11:1 but that doesn't help at all... unless you think faith is the evidence and NOT a belief, which sounds absurd. Think about it. Is the fact that my child got cured from cancer when he received a blessing "faith" or is "faith" a trust or belief one has? Faith can NOT be the evidence.

clearly isn't good? how so?

You want to go over the supposed "evidence" for God's existence? We can do that if you want but the burden of proof is in you to show an incredibly powerful being who is affecting believers' lives positively actually exists and is not something else.

experiment - like follow the commandments - seems like you get pretty good results from that

Again, changed, that is NOT how science goes about doing things. Verification is a terrible idea when trying to get serious about this. I can find verification that Zeus sends thunders to my tongue every time I eat salt... you see the problem with "verification"? Science works with falsification.

[elguanteloko]

and subjective experiences are the only ones we can know for sure are true because we can only be certain of those things we have personally experienced...

Oh, you can be sure about your feelings, no doubt about that!

...the problem, brother, is when you try, with very questionable methods and questionable reasoning, to discover or conclude what caused those feelings.

[elguanteloko]

I have to warn you, changed:

mfbukowski has stated before that his "God" is nothing but an idea in your mind. For mf, the concept of "God" doesn't point to anything outside of an idea that (and this was admitted by him) you accept because it makes you feel good and the idea gives purpose to your life. I say this because I'm sure you don't take God to be nothing but an idea accepted to make you feel good.

[mfbukowski]

Is this God's way of giving us agency?

Yep that is exactly right! That's why the problem of God knowing (or anyone knowing- suppose we are computers and someone can in principle "know" ) what we will do is irrelevant to us making the choice.

Someone brought up a good analogy- imagine seeing a car going toward a cliff that the occupants can't see- but because of your different point of view- you can see the cliff. You know for a fact that they are going over, but your knowledge of that has nothing to do with their choice to keep their foot on the accelerator.

We make choices regardless of who knows what we will do- we feel the choice subjectively regardless of what anyone else knows will happen, including God. So an objective knowledge of what we will do does not change the subjective reality of the fact that it is us who is making the choice- because WE DO NOT KNOW what will happen

[changed]

Oh, you can be sure about your feelings, no doubt about that!

...the problem, brother, is when you try, with very questionable methods and questionable reasoning, to discover or conclude what caused those feelings.

you are chatting with a sister

questionable reasoning? if these feelings direct me to accurate knowledge which is undetectable by my own 5 senses... such as warning me of a traffic jam, or letting me know who needs a phone call - and the info turns out to be right, then is it not reasonable to conclude that these inner feelings come from an outer source? a source which is able to see more than I can? and if following these promptings repeatedly serves to protect and help me, is it not reasonable to conclude that this outer source is one which wants the best for me? and if I join with others and feel these same things more powerfully around them, is it not reasonable to join together in the embrace of those who have had the same experiences that I have had?

[changed]

Yep that is exactly right! That's why the problem of God knowing (or anyone knowing- suppose we are computers and someone can in principle "know" ) what we will do is irrelevant to us making the choice.

Someone brought up a good analogy- imagine seeing a car going toward a cliff that the occupants can't see- but because of your different point of view- you can see the cliff. You know for a fact that they are going over, but your knowledge of that has nothing to do with their choice to keep their foot on the accelerator.

We make choices regardless of who knows what we will do- we feel the choice subjectively regardless of what anyone else knows will happen, including God. So an objective knowledge of what we will do does not change the subjective reality of the fact that it is us who is making the choice- because WE DO NOT KNOW what will happen

yes, I can read the TV guide and know what will be on... but that does not mean I am responsible for it ...

agency is an interesting thing... the uncertainty which gives us agency allows us all to create our own realities for a time... but it also keeps us from clearly seeing the realities of others.... but now we see through a glass darkly, then face to face...

read ya'll later, it's been fun! May you all have a wonderful day of r&r!

[mfbukowski]

I have to warn you, changed:

mfbukowski has stated before that his "God" is nothing but an idea in your mind. For mf, the concept of "God" doesn't point to anything outside of an idea that (and this was admitted by him) you accept because it makes you feel good and the idea gives purpose to your life. I say this because I'm sure you don't take God to be nothing but an idea accepted to make you feel good.

How dare you misrepresent my beliefs. Do not do it again. I have had to have portions of your posts deleted because of their lies- I will not go through it again.

Your inability to understand epistemology is not my problem- you hold yourself out as someone who understands these things but you don't have a clue.

You cannot distinguish between the way we prove the existence of God with the way we prove the existence of objective facts. I have tried this many times with you -

The way we prove God exists is through subjective feelings- I have never never, nor will I ever say that God is nothing but an idea in your mind. Clearly the only way you can know he exists is by a feeling in you heart- but you cannot differentiate the difference between those two statements.

There is a difference between "what is" and how you know what is- and you do not understand the difference, when you speak of ideas pointing to things in the world.

You have a totally naive perspective on the correspondence theory of truth without any sophistication about what those words even mean.

I really don't want to start another battle with you- please refrain from characterizing what you think my beliefs are- because you have no conception of what they are.

Edit: I am out of this thread unless e misrepresents me again- I won't tolerate it.

[elguanteloko]

you are chatting with a sister

Oh, my bad! I feel like being nicer all of a sudden.

questionable reasoning? if these feelings direct me to accurate knowledge which is undetectable by my own 5 senses... such as warning me of a traffic jam, or letting me know who needs a phone call - and the info turns out to be right, then is it not reasonable to conclude that these inner feelings come from an outer source? a source which is able to see more than I can? and if following these promptings repeatedly serves to protect and help me, is it not reasonable to conclude that this outer source is one which wants the best for me? and if I join with others and feel these same things more powerfully around them, is it not reasonable to join together in the embrace of those who have had the same experiences that I have had?

Would you be willing to put those "feelings" or promptings to more rigorous testings? Our minds are famous for being easily deceived. I mean, if you are going to claim that a supermegapowerful being communicates with you about stuff... that does seem to require some very amazing testing, don't you think? If I thought cancer was cured by the forces of Neptune and not because of medication given to the patients, that would seem to require some extraordinary evidence. What do you say?

[mfbukowski]

you are chatting with a sister

questionable reasoning? if these feelings direct me to accurate knowledge which is undetectable by my own 5 senses... such as warning me of a traffic jam, or letting me know who needs a phone call - and the info turns out to be right, then is it not reasonable to conclude that these inner feelings come from an outer source? a source which is able to see more than I can? and if following these promptings repeatedly serves to protect and help me, is it not reasonable to conclude that this outer source is one which wants the best for me? and if I join with others and feel these same things more powerfully around them, is it not reasonable to join together in the embrace of those who have had the same experiences that I have had?

For the record, we exactly agree- and this is what I am saying as well. My belief in God gives richness to my life and subjectively we can know that these things are "true" by their effects in our lives- and the lives of others. I have been prompted many times to call people and do other things precisely when the need was greatest.

[elguanteloko]

How dare you misrepresent my beliefs. Do not do it again. I have had to have portions of your posts deleted because of their lies- I will not go through it again.

here's the thread, anyone can see what you said:

Your inability to understand epistemology is not my problem- you hold yourself out as someone who understands these things but you don't have a clue.

...

You cannot distinguish between the way we prove the existence of God with the way we prove the existence of objective facts. I have tried this many times with you -

Is God not an "objective fact"? Does he exist outside of your head?

The way we prove God exists is through subjective feelings- I have never never, nor will I ever say that God is nothing but an idea in your mind. Clearly the only way you can know he exists is by a feeling in you heart- but you cannot differentiate the difference between those two statements.

The way we "prove" Zeus is through subjective feelings, too. The way we "prove" cancer is caused by Neptune's influence is through subjective feelings, too. Why?

There is a difference between "what is" and how you know what is- and you do not understand the difference, when you speak of ideas pointing to things in the world.

My hole argument against your knowledge of God is based on that distinction (mostly). The word "my brain cancer" (I don't have one, btw, thank goodness!) points to a thing in the same way "God" is said, in Mormonism and other religions, to point to something. That's a pretty clear thing to get, mf.

You have a totally naive perspective on the correspondence theory of truth without any sophistication about what those words even mean.

I don't care about the specifics of what I mean by "cancer", for example. What is cancer, really? Of what type of cells, specifically, is my brain cancer made up of? I don't know but it's specific enough for you to get what we are talking about. Same with God.

I really don't want to start another battle with you- please refrain from characterizing what you think my beliefs are- because you have no conception of what they are.

I won't battle.

[mfbukowski]

here's the thread, anyone can see what you said: http://www.mormondia...n/page__st__380

Yes they can. And I stand by what I said.

That's it- I am out of here unless I have to keep from being libeled again.

Do not characterize my beliefs. I am happy to let my words speak for themselves.

[Skylla]

I have to warn you, changed:

mfbukowski has stated before that his "God" is nothing but an idea in your mind. For mf, the concept of "God" doesn't point to anything outside of an idea that (and this was admitted by him) you accept because it makes you feel good and the idea gives purpose to your life. I say this because I'm sure you don't take God to be nothing but an idea accepted to make you feel good.

Let him speak for himself. You are misrepresenting his beliefs.

Skylla

[thesometimesaint]

If all is just the imagination of God or a giant holodeck. How would we know any different?

[Ambrose]

1 + 1 = 2 ~this has been proven?

Please, see Nichomachus' treatise Introduction to Arithmetic; Iamblichus' commentary is also helpful here.

Arithmeticam Samius Pythagoras invent, Nichomachus scripsit.